Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic

reason for VOTE?

by PipTigger (Hermit)
on Jan 14, 2001 at 19:54 UTC ( [id://51750] : monkdiscuss . print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Hey all... I was just looking at the Approval Nodelet && saw that it has a "Reason for consideration" input box so that a reasonable comment can accompany basically a moderation decision. This probably facilitates meta-moderation but it might also be good to have these (voluntary) consideration comments be publicly visible too so that the community can more wholly participate in moderation && hopefully Monasterial community betterment.

I realize that it might be arduous to implement but a mechanism for anyone to affix a comment or "reason" with each of their votes might be really nice. Sort of like a persistent chatterbox that is attached to each node && is a place to nicely say stuff like "ROFL", "please don't post messages like this in the future", "I couldn't agree more!", etc. Maybe "vote comments" could be a user setting or a linq to occupy some of the (typically blank) space on either side of the vote options/reputation for each node. The author might be able to reply to a comment with a /msh or even another sub-comment to point out that she was kidding or that she didn't emphacize how personal the watch was && that she'll have to go back && get it off the kangaroo (&& some poptarts && Modesty Blaise etc.). I thinq this might be a good idea.

It seems to me that /. is plagued by unaccountability. Yes, I believe that AnonymousMonks/AnonymousCowards are a necessary evil but once users are empowered with moderation, the ability to basically popularly determine what content is most worthwhile,... well that process should be in the open. Let users establish reputations for their comments as well as their voting/comments. This way, when people post homeworks or trolls try to petrify steaming grits sculptures of Portman, we know why the comments are receiving certain votes. Certain voters might be notoriously harsh etc. If moderation were visible, it would have to be accountable. There couldn't be minions of organized trolls artificially inflating karma && corrupting the utility of the system. I'm not ready to advocate forced visibility of everyone's vote history but I thinq an opt-in might prove very useful. Monks would likely give a lot less border-line "--" votes if they were visible or required an accompanying explanation etc. It might also encourage even better posts if that's possible. Well that's what I thinq anyway. I'm often wrong though so let me know if you disagree. TTFN.

p.s. Initiate Nail Removal Immediately!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: reason for VOTE?
by Fastolfe (Vicar) on Jan 14, 2001 at 21:12 UTC
    One of the huge difference between PerlMonks and Slashdot is that Slashdot has always bowed to the whole "free speech" thing, since a lot of their topics, in order to get a valid, balanced viewpoint (as if that's ever been possible anyway), require the voice of people that don't want to be known.

    PerlMonks does not suffer from that, and as a result, they can severely restrict what the anonymous can do, and can reasonably rely on a person's level or XP to determine the quality of that person's Perl expertise. I hope to God that PM doesn't change its policies to better reflect the "free speech" policies of Slashdot, because we've all seen what happens.

    I feel just the opposite. Accountability would only mean people would not vote for fear of retaliation. Bad sentiment will develop. If someone wants to post a note explaining why they voted one way or the other, or why they marked their node for consideration (which, I understood, was to be done only in extreme situations), they're free to do so, but I think forcing accountability for your voting actions would hurt the voting process more than help it. Though don't get me wrong: I'd love to figure out who keeps going around and randomly -- posts for no apparent reason, or just because they don't like the person.

Re: reason for VOTE?
by extremely (Priest) on Jan 15, 2001 at 01:51 UTC
    The "reason for consideration" field is a request to the editor. The idea there is to ask vroom and others to delete duplicates, add code tags, edit un-editable nodes, and move nodes to other sections after they were already pinned down.

    I'm way too lazy to justify every vote, Often I just want it to move up above another post or to reward the person for asking a good question. More importantly, the current vote system encourages people to vote on multiple axes; coolness, humor, completeness, wider applicability, golf, power, speed, and even sheer volume. If you switch to a new system now, you are leaving all those old posts out of any new markup. I think unless there is a major flaw uncovered in the current system, that we should hope for vroom to stick to small, well reasoned changes and not totally revamp something that is honestly working quite well.

    $you = new YOU;
    honk() if $you->love(perl)

      So what would you generally prefer. Should I start to use the chatterbox, although it is not persistent then?
      Mr. Lee
Re: reason for VOTE?
by BoredByPolitics (Scribe) on Jan 15, 2001 at 01:29 UTC
    You might be interested in taking a look at how rusty does things on K5. He has created an interesting way of allowing the community to moderate 'root nodes' by allowing members to vote on them before they're allowed onto the front page (or into their relevant section).

    Each comment can also be voted on by anyone (no restriction on number of votes), however, he recently allowed you to see who had voted what way on any comment, including historical ones (which caused a slight amount of controv.).

    It all appears to work very well, and the discussions are predominately intelligent.


      Thanks. It seems cool. Do you pronounce it Nipponese-style like "koo-row-sheen" or like "corrosion"? Anyways, I'm impressed. K5 is really good. TTFN.

      p.s. Initiate Nail Removal Immediately!
        Do you pronounce it Nipponese-style like "koo-row-sheen" or like "corrosion"?

        Both! There's an explanation of how the name came about somewhere on the site (can't find it at the moment), but it's not meant to be an actual word, although someone has looked into the meaning of the two words kuro and shin.